Does Ford Have The Time To Do Things Quickly?

[JETSOLVER]

When were these words spoken?

Car and Driver, March 1981

 

WOW history really does repeat itself! :o

 

 

Then 5 years later we had the Taurus, a nice T-bird, the Escort was selling well....

 

I hope history repeats itself and Ford rights the ship!!

 

Superior Find!!

 

One styling/engineering generation later(just under two years if I recall for the first product) showroom traffic was lead by the Mustang GT with a (breathlessly now) HOLLEY 4 barrel !, the not quite ready for primtime SVO Mustang(an import killer an harbinger of a new era), the first series of real heavy duty work trucks designed as such, the stunning new Aero 'Bird(remember the first time you saw one?) followed relentlessly by the industry changing Taurus and a global small car.

 

Supported by advertising(have you driven a Ford?) and Racing in every damn form of motorsport( recall the Motorsport stripe banners everywhere?). BTW, those highly sought after banners had pride of place in young impressionable about to be drivers rooms and this one went on to buy a few SVT big margin products!

 

Ah yes, the Ford lesson is to forget the Ford lesson.

 

To be repeated at steady intervals just for fun I guess.

 

 

Edit: In rereading that, the parallels are stunning. IMSA Mustang, the Focus RS200, Glidden and his T-bird... DRAGGING my father into showrooms to get the brochures...Blue Ovals everywhere!! Thanks.

Edited December 21, 2006 by JETSOLVER

[mkaresh]

My interest in cars began when I saw the 1983 TB on the cover of Car & Driver.

 

The difference is that back in the 1980s there was a ton of low-hanging fruit in terms of product and process improvements, and the Japanese and Germans weren't nearly as strong as they are now.

 

Back to the OP, I thought that both it and the initial response were well-reasoned. How is this possible? Because there are very compelling arguments on both sides. Unless Ford is willing to replace the entire Mercury lineup in a very short timeframe, they will end up with a confusing mess. And if they do replace it, it will mean giving up pretty much all of the brand's existing customers in exchange for some it does not currently have. To my knowledge, this has never been done. Even Saturn has the advantage of having always been targetted at import owners.

 

Why would they have to totally switch customer bases? Because the new cars would be much different than the current ones and, more importantly, more expensive. The main reason we don't see more European products here is because they'd have to sell at VW prices. There's a limited market for non-premium-brand cars at VW prices. Just ask VW.

 

I'm very interested in seeing how Saturn solves this problem.

 

The Contour is actually a very good example. I owned a 1996 SE V6. Loved that car. From how it was put together and the content Ford clearly had a lot more cost in the car than they could hope to recoup at the prices they could charge in the U.S. They lost a ton of money on it. In later years they tried hard to take cost out, and the resulting car wasn't nearly as appealing.

 

A better strategy then, I think, would have been to try to sell 100k Contours to enthusiasts rather than 300k to the people currently driving Tempos. But this wouldn't have filled the plant. Same problem this time around. Importing Fords could be successful with the right strategy and realistic volume expectations. But because of the modest volumes, it wouldn't be a company-saving move.

 

On the Falcon, I haven't driven it, but suspect it isn't nearly as refined as the German cars it would have to compete with. Drive a Pontiac GTO to see what I mean. The car has definite strengths, but many details betray a lack of thorough design. When you're developing a car for a fairly small market, you cannot put nearly as much effort into it as the Germans put into their cars. It's got to be quick and dirty.

 

Also, Lincoln already offered consumers a 5-Series competitor. They didn't buy it. And, adjusting for the state of the competition, a Falcon-based Lincoln would not be as competitive as the LS was.

[MKII]

My interest in cars began when I saw the 1983 TB on the cover of Car & Driver.

 

The difference is that back in the 1980s there was a ton of low-hanging fruit in terms of product and process improvements, and the Japanese and Germans weren't nearly as strong as they are now.

 

Back to the OP, I thought that both it and the initial response were well-reasoned. How is this possible? Because there are very compelling arguments on both sides. Unless Ford is willing to replace the entire Mercury lineup in a very short timeframe, they will end up with a confusing mess. And if they do replace it, it will mean giving up pretty much all of the brand's existing customers in exchange for some it does not currently have. To my knowledge, this has never been done. Even Saturn has the advantage of having always been targetted at import owners.

 

Why would they have to totally switch customer bases? Because the new cars would be much different than the current ones and, more importantly, more expensive. The main reason we don't see more European products here is because they'd have to sell at VW prices. There's a limited market for non-premium-brand cars at VW prices. Just ask VW.

 

I'm very interested in seeing how Saturn solves this problem.

 

The Contour is actually a very good example. I owned a 1996 SE V6. Loved that car. From how it was put together and the content Ford clearly had a lot more cost in the car than they could hope to recoup at the prices they could charge in the U.S. They lost a ton of money on it. In later years they tried hard to take cost out, and the resulting car wasn't nearly as appealing.

 

A better strategy then, I think, would have been to try to sell 100k Contours to enthusiasts rather than 300k to the people currently driving Tempos. But this wouldn't have filled the plant. Same problem this time around. Importing Fords could be successful with the right strategy and realistic volume expectations. But because of the modest volumes, it wouldn't be a company-saving move.

 

On the Falcon, I haven't driven it, but suspect it isn't nearly as refined as the German cars it would have to compete with. Drive a Pontiac GTO to see what I mean. The car has definite strengths, but many details betray a lack of thorough design. When you're developing a car for a fairly small market, you cannot put nearly as much effort into it as the Germans put into their cars. It's got to be quick and dirty.

 

Also, Lincoln already offered consumers a 5-Series competitor. They didn't buy it. And, adjusting for the state of the competition, a Falcon-based Lincoln would not be as competitive as the LS was.

 

Euro Fords will not cost too much to be affordable. Just check the prices in Mexico, The Mondeo is actually cheaper then the Fusion. I took the liberty of converting some models from Mexican Peso to Canadian dollars.

The Mondeo in Mexico starts at MXN195,000 or CAD$20,750.00

The Fusion in Mexico starts from MXN197,600 or CAD$21,025.00

The Focus (MKII) sedan starts from MXN177,500 or CAD$18,886.00

FYI, the Focus ST starts from MXN284,000 or CAD$30,130.00

Fiesta hatch starts from MXN107,700 or CAD$11,459.00

MXN=Mexican Peso

 

At Ford N.A. cost-cutting and efficiency are the topic of the day. Whereas that topic ought to be how we beat the competition

[RichardJensen]

that topic ought to be how we beat the competition

NO.

 

The problems at Ford are systemic, and home-run products, in the past, have discouraged Ford from fixing structural issues that have prevented them from consistently delivering competitive product.

 

Ford's focus needs to be structure, more so than final product, as the structure, properly implemented, will consistently deliver quality product.

 

As for the Mondeo and Fusion, in Mexico, check out the engines and transmissions. IIRC, the Mondeo comes with a 4-cylinder on up to a 2.5L V6, and the 2.5L 6 is available only with a manual. The Fusion is only available with a 6 and an auto down there.

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06356/748288-185.stm

 

As part of his push for uniformity, Mr. Mulally is moving Ford to combine its global operations, modifying its current structure of separate businesses by brand and region. Mr. Mulally was shocked to discover that the plan before his arrival was to "operate our eight Fords."

 

In the executive suite he shares with Chairman Bill Ford, Mr. Mulally says he asked Mr. Ford why he hadn't integrated the company.

 

He says Mr. Ford agreed that integration was desirable, but told him it was difficult. Every time Ford had considered forcing integration, a new hit product -- such as the Explorer, Taurus or F-series truck -- would come along and propel profitability without tough changes, explained the fourth-generation Ford leader

.

 

This is why the change at Ford has to come in the organization. Change in product does not solve the core issues with Ford, and it never has. Ford's corporate structure has been obsolete for about 20 years now. Their PD (1st gen. Taurus, and F-Series excepted) has been obsolete for about as long.

 

But they've staggered from one smash hit to another, and they've never had to fix the core problems with the company.

Edited December 24, 2006 by RichardJensen

[xr7g428]

NO.

 

Ford's focus needs to be structure, more so than final product, as the structure, properly implemented, will consistently deliver quality product.

 

Richard I certain understand your frustration, but better committees are not going to replace talent and vision.

 

Businesses some times get caught up in cost cutting frenzies. It is like walking around a cold house and trying to find every loose window pane, every crack at the door, every drafty chimney and on and on. the effort becomes so all consuming that you forget that one way to get warm is to walk over and turn up the thermostat.

 

I am all for Ford pursuing better structure, fixing all of the leaks, but they better not lose sight of how to turn up the heat. I think the problem at Ford was that they got so busy pointing fingers that they failed to do anything. Right now they need to start generating some serious product driven heat. Great products will buy the time to restructure, but I do not see continuous restructuring as ever buying enough time to make selling mediocre products profitable.

 

In short, if Ford doesn't have great products quickly, then all of the restructuring will be for no benefit. The goal is not a great structure, it is the product.

 

About thirty years ago as a college student, I was doing a service call on the sound system at the most popular restaurant and bar in town. Their amplifiers had over heated and shut down the night before. Not a good thing. They were less than pleased and I thought they were going to have one of my body parts as a trophy. Every single one of the crew knew why I was there and they were all ready to give me a real beating. The one thing that they could not stand for was to let their customers down.

 

As I went to pull the amps out from under the bar I noticed that some one had stuffed a bunch of paper sacks full of stuff all around the amps, effectively cutting off all of the cooling air. I started pulling the sacks out and throwing them up on the bar. There were probably ten or twelve. The manager came over and asked me what I was doing. I explained the situation, and opened one of the bags. It was full of money, all ones and fives. All of the bags were full of money, none of the bills larger than a ten. The manager had a flash of recognition. Apparently the day before they had the money spread out on the pool tables trying to count it all and get the deposit done before opening time. they ran out of time and stuffed the money into the bags and crammed it where ever they could under the bar. He said it happened all of the time.

 

I learned an important lesson. This bar could be terrible at just about everything, as long as they were really good at the one thing that mattered, and that was keeping the customers happy. They kept their eye on the product at all times. Now over the years, I have seen a great many restaurants fail that had impeccable systems for control, and just mediocre food. Even McDonald's has learned that in spite of the best systems in the business, even the tiniest slip in the product can be deadly. I doubt that a non product focused strategy will work any better for Ford.

[RichardJensen]

Ford has put product ahead of structure for the past three decades. That is why they are in the trouble that they're in today.

 

Your bar illustration misses the reality that on a day to day basis, in any large organization, the structure of responsibility and the methods for choosing decision makers exerts a far greater impact on what happens, and how quickly it happens, than any one person.

 

You could put the best car guy in the world at the top of Ford's PD--but if the system is not capable of moving quickly, he will fail.

 

Toyota has produced how many well-know 'car guys'?

 

I can't think of any right off the top of my head. Can you?

 

Toyota has succeeded because they have a disciplined structure.

 

You put a disciplined structure in place at Ford, and watch the first class product come down the line as reliable as clockwork.

 

The aim is not 'endless reconstruction', but the imposition of a structure that will be responsive to market pressures, and which will turn out product that exceeds its customers' expectations quickly, reliably, and profitably.

 

If you cannot impose a system that ensures that Ford's entire lineup is bulletproof, close the doors.

 

Ford will eventually go bankrupt, if all they are satisfied to do is produce a decent Mustang and a decent F-series truck.

 

THE structure is what puts product in the showroom, therefore the structure is more important than the product.